Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Day That TMers Became Officially Crazy
Tom Pall wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:01 PM, turquoiseb wrote: > >> >> Thanks for your reply, Vaj. I cannot disagree with your assessment. One >> thing that never ceases to amaze me is how people can cling to beliefs >> and work tirelessly to preserve the appearance that they are true, long >> after other more reasonable people would have realized that they were >> not. >> >> But for me the "tipping point" into this world of clinging to >> appearances was not the introduction of the TM-Sidhi program itself but >> the rebranding of it in terms of self importance. That, essentially, is >> what the shift from "You perform the Sidhis as a way to realize your own >> enlightenment" to "You perform the Sidhis as a kind of sacred duty, >> because by doing so you become One Of The Most Important People On >> Earth, one of the select few, the holy thud of whose butt-bounces can >> bring about world peace and an Age Of Enlightenment" was. It was a >> radical shift into the world of self importance and the amplification of >> individual ego. >> >> > You've got the timing wrong. I remember the first residence course I was > on which had a governess, one of the first back from Switzerland. This > was when the sidhis were a rocket ship for TM, which had already been > described by Maharishi as the rocket ship to enlightenment. This lady > acted like she didn't shit, let alone did it not stink. All, initiators, > TMers, regarded her as though she was a body of light with flesh on top so > we could see her. She never denied that she could fly, walk through > walls, hear our very thoughts. She actually encouraged the awe about her. > So did the other governors who came back.It appears Maharishi had > really hyped the 6 month course participants up, not unlike the way > initiators had previously been hyped up as being so very special in the > scheme of manifest Creation. The Vedic Atom, including Michael Moore, > came to our area next and they acted like they were God's gift. I got to > see some tapes that were meant for initiators at a former ski chalet > outside of Quebec which usually just ran ATRs. I guess they didn't have > mere meditator tapes so we watched ATR tapes.Maharishi was hyping the > initiators that they were God's gift and coaching them on how to act > "special" so that all would pick up on their being "special". I assume > Maharishi pumped up the participants of the first 6 month courses to entice > initiators to become governors and later TMers to take the arduous path of > 8 weeks of preparatory courses in residence then 8 weeks of sidhi training > in residence, a tough thing for a householder being not nickled and dimed > by the local TM center, but pretty much fleeced of every penny they had. > Indeed this one initiator couple pinned me down and told me that as > initiators they were so much more deserving of taking CIC than I was, so I > just had to go to the bank with them to get a check for the $6,000 course > fee. Ballsy, eh? I now know that the "experiences" we TMers were fed > were bogus, made up to get us to spring for the sidhis. Once again, before > the woo-woo save the world thing started. > I thank God A'mighty that I was spared the "special" teacher tripe on my TTC. It was just the quite reasonable, "You came here to become teachers. So, what's keeping you? Go home and teach already." In everything Maharishi said there was the notion of specialness; we were special, the food was special, the toilet was special. If we had been infested w/ bedbugs, they no doubt would have been special as well. For myself I'm down w/ being as special as a bedbug. Unlike in other endeavors, in teaching TM the less one brings to the table the better. And bedbug status is just about the right level for effective teaching. But I did have similar experience w/ the ballsy types. Freshly minted governors rode into town, informing us mere initiators that they had been sent by Maharishi hisself to acquire magnificent architectural wonders that might serve as local Capitals for the Age of Whatever. When I pointed out to these jamokes that they had neither a pot to piss in nor a window to throw it out of they were not dismayed in the least. Around purity, I was schooled, the means would collect themselves. Alas and alack, the real estate agents representing multi-million dollar houses, and clearly not living the fullness of life, didn't quite see it that way. They wanted earnest money from two guys who would account themselves lucky to have a change of clothes. Real estate, one. Ritam, zip. Our heroes conveniently divined from the home of all knowledge that they should haul ass and find a more deserving locale for a Capital. For all I know they're still searching. Perhaps they found honest work. P Duff
Re: [FairfieldLife] It ain't peanuts
Sal Sunshine wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Tom Pall wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote:
>> On Oct 16, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
>>
>>> On TTC we had fish or chicken twice a week. Eggs were available every
>>> morning. And Thursdays tuna for sandwiches was available. I understand
>>> things got a bit more austere in later courses. :-D
I don't know when your course was, but on mine ('75) we had lentils on
Phase III. Gawd, did we have lentils, every meal, IIRC. I don't
remember anything else about the food. Wait, I think there was water to
wash down the lentils.
>>>
>>> Up until then MMY's take on diet was "eat what your mother puts before you."
>> Typical. Treating fully-grown adults like
>> children.
On my course it was more like treating full-grown adults like Indian
children.
P Duff
>>
>>> Apparently many TM'ers mothers were lousy cooks and many winced
>>> at the idea. His concept was somewhat simple ayurveda or your inherited
>>> genetics will determine what diet is best for you.
>> If only he had left it at that. Whatever rules
>> he set up were subject to some extremely strange
>> interpretations by some course leaders, esp. on
>> some of the DC courses. Some of the meals were all
>> but nauseating.
>>
>> Sal
>>
>>
>>
>> And of course veggies grown for consumption at MUM are grown in hydroponic
>> tanks. Yeah, that's really organic, really natural. Wonder how many
>> people are developing trace mineral deficiencies? Just how much iodine do
>> plants synthesize?
>
> I always felt MUM would be a perfect lab to test
> the hypothesis behind the Darwin Awards.
>
> Sal
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Dirt kicked to the curb goes into the gutter.
Professionals kicked to the curb go into retail.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
curtisdeltablues wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, P Duff wrote: > >> Sorry if what I wrote came across as negative. I don't think your >> request is the slightest bit ridiculous. My point there was that bias >> is just another belief system, and can be as blinding as any other. > > > I really enjoyed your response and did not take it as negative in any way, but as an invitation to think more deeply about such a test. I couldn't agree more with your point concerning bias. We are flawed cognitive monkeys and is sometimes amazes me that we ever get anything right! The monkeys, given enough time and enough typewriters, may write Hamlet. But there's a chance that they'll not need a lot of time; they might get it correct right out of the chute. And, by golly, they do! Clearly, the monkeys are acting in accord w/ nature and thereby have its demonstrably full support. Break out dem crowns and robes already. This is why it is so hard for me to accept the claim of anyone who claims to have gotten EVERYTHING right! (Yeah, I'm calling you out Holy Tradition.) I dunno, the monkeys feel that they have a lock on it, and their experience backs that feeling up. But, mind you, the monkeys don't think they got it right on the first attempt; they don't know that this was one attempt of a gazillion envisioned, nothing about the bigger picture. Thy don't know that somebody staged this as an experiment , borrowed the monkeys, rented the typewriters and lab space, etc. All the monkeys know is that they sat quietly at the typewriters, quietly putting their attention on typing Hamlet. And out it came, everything correct, just as they expected. "Silly monkeys, You don't get the big picture at all. You don't even have the neurons to support a big picture. You're just a troupe of damn monkeys being used in an experiment, and you act like you invented air or something. And where did you get those robes?", asks the scientist, sitting in a mock-up office in God's lab. And on it goes. Upward, downward, every which-a-way. P Duff > > > >> curtisdeltablues wrote: >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, P Duff wrote: >>>> Hi, Curtis, it has been a long time. >>>> >>>> A couple points, if you will. >>>> >>>> First, I agree wholeheartedly that your ability to express yourself in >>>> writing has improved tremendously. When I first started lurking here I >>>> read bits of posts of almost everybody and thought to myself, "Oh, this >>>> must be some other Curtis." But it wasn't some other Curtis. Kudos and >>>> thanks for the wonderful surprise. >>> That was nice of you, thanks. I use FFL as a means to keep me writing >> regularly, it is a great resource. Good to have you back. >> >>>> Second point. >>>> You write, "[You are] up for any demo of master of any other level than >>>> what I am currently perceiving. I suspect if these connections are real >>>> there should be some testable predictions possible." >>>> >>>> But are you also up for conceding that the testable predictions being >>>> met that the connections are indeed real as claimed? Or might you be >>>> likely to say that your senses are unreliable, that a little thing >>>> affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheat. The >>>> master's seeming powerful abilities may be an undigested bit of beef, a >>>> blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. >>> Well the whole field of epistemology is devoted to helping us fill in >> our cognitive gaps, so everyone is subject to the flaws you mention, not >> just me. And it goes a lot deeper than stomach disorders, we have >> genuine brain flaws that interfere with our ability to sort out good and >> bad conclusions from our experience. >> >> I couldn't help myself. I ripped the stomach disorders schtick from >> Dickens' "A Christmas Carol." The lines are from the part where Scrooge >> tries to justify to himself why the apparition of his former partner >> cannot be real. It seemed to fit the discussion. :) >> >> I would actually hope that a person >> who claimed to be functioning in a higher state would know the limits of >> my abilities and be the first to help me design a convincing demo. >> Wouldn't it be nice if it was a collaboration rather than an >> antagonistic relationship? Wouldn't such a person be a champion of all >> the things that would help a waking state person be c
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
curtisdeltablues wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, P Duff wrote: >> Hi, Curtis, it has been a long time. >> >> A couple points, if you will. >> >> First, I agree wholeheartedly that your ability to express yourself in >> writing has improved tremendously. When I first started lurking here I >> read bits of posts of almost everybody and thought to myself, "Oh, this >> must be some other Curtis." But it wasn't some other Curtis. Kudos and >> thanks for the wonderful surprise. > > That was nice of you, thanks. I use FFL as a means to keep me writing regularly, it is a great resource. Good to have you back. >> Second point. >> You write, "[You are] up for any demo of master of any other level than >> what I am currently perceiving. I suspect if these connections are real >> there should be some testable predictions possible." >> >> But are you also up for conceding that the testable predictions being >> met that the connections are indeed real as claimed? Or might you be >> likely to say that your senses are unreliable, that a little thing >> affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheat. The >> master's seeming powerful abilities may be an undigested bit of beef, a >> blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. > >Well the whole field of epistemology is devoted to helping us fill in our cognitive gaps, so everyone is subject to the flaws you mention, not just me. And it goes a lot deeper than stomach disorders, we have genuine brain flaws that interfere with our ability to sort out good and bad conclusions from our experience. I couldn't help myself. I ripped the stomach disorders schtick from Dickens' "A Christmas Carol." The lines are from the part where Scrooge tries to justify to himself why the apparition of his former partner cannot be real. It seemed to fit the discussion. :) I would actually hope that a person who claimed to be functioning in a higher state would know the limits of my abilities and be the first to help me design a convincing demo. Wouldn't it be nice if it was a collaboration rather than an antagonistic relationship? Wouldn't such a person be a champion of all the things that would help a waking state person be confident? They should be the first to mention experimental flaws that go way beyond what you have brought up. Absolutely. > >> IOW, I hold that it's not meaningful to ask for proof unless you: >> >> 1) are able to recognize it when you see it. >> 2) are willing to accept it when you recognize it. > > I guess we would have to be more specific about what I was thinking of. I mean the kind of physical manifestation mentioned in the siddhis as abilities of people in higher states. So for your first point, I should be able to recognize it as a pre-condition of any proposed demo. I am not looking for someone to make the clouds we are watching disappear. I want some real master of the universe shit! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and all. If there is some question of my ability to perceive it, then we have the wrong demo. I am standing in for everyman in this imagined demo. You are correct. We need the right demo. And I want to see the real shit as well. I think, read, believe, that there are elements on what we are calling "more powerful levels" that cannot be brought out to what the average person could see, e.g., angels helping somebody out of their dying body. I think such things indeed require a super-sized-face-East-when-you-meditate nervous system. Of course, there's the argument to be made that the angels thang is naught but an artifact of the turbo nervous system at 110% rated power. In the realm where the phenomenon of subject and object of experience no longer map to waking state, then the rules of waking state no longer apply. But there are many claimed abilities that are declared to happen on this gross level, such as levitation. I think pics are great and descriptions wonderful, but that's because I'm a parlor trick junkie. I love things that hint at being way cool. And that's my bias. But at the end of the day I, too, gotta see the motherfucker up in the air. > > I don't limit any demonstration to just me. If someone had such an ability they should be able to prove it under the kind of conditions Randi imposes on his challenge. I am aware that my ability to evaluate somethings might be flawed and I would need some expertise. But if someone could actually fly, for example. With the right transparency (I can walk where I want) I would be impressed with such a demo. It would rock my world. If someone was going to demonstrate that they could telepathically pick a greater t
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly
Hi, Curtis, it has been a long time. A couple points, if you will. First, I agree wholeheartedly that your ability to express yourself in writing has improved tremendously. When I first started lurking here I read bits of posts of almost everybody and thought to myself, "Oh, this must be some other Curtis." But it wasn't some other Curtis. Kudos and thanks for the wonderful surprise. Second point. You write, "[You are] up for any demo of master of any other level than what I am currently perceiving. I suspect if these connections are real there should be some testable predictions possible." But are you also up for conceding that the testable predictions being met that the connections are indeed real as claimed? Or might you be likely to say that your senses are unreliable, that a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheat. The master's seeming powerful abilities may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. IOW, I hold that it's not meaningful to ask for proof unless you: 1) are able to recognize it when you see it. 2) are willing to accept it when you recognize it. Can you give me an example of what, short of a roll of duct tape and a .44 mag, would compel you to say, "Wow! TM [tantra, really good tequila, et al.] may not have done it for me, but it sure can deliver on its promise"? P Duff curtisdeltablues wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau wrote: >> Well, I hear you about what our minds can manufacture. We've all had >> hallucinations, have we not? > > My point is more comprehensive. I am saying that our brain is always > constructing our sense of reality even out of sensory perceptions so we have > no ability to distinguish if it came from inside or outside sometimes. > > < But I do believe that we can synthesize our right and left brains, our > spiritual and material/analytic sides, our poetic and scientific > sensibilities when we attempt to use our apperceptive mass to approach > reality.> > > I use the arts for this if I understand you. I don't understand the term > "apperceptive mass". > > > < And I also believe we can use true discernment to distinguish what is > "false" from what is "true," although it can get extremely difficult. > > > I'll go further. Humans suck at this and have so many cognitive flaws and > gaps, it is amazing we get anything right! We combine it with and perverse > natural inflated confidence about out abilities. > > > < I know that quantum weirdness and simultaneity over distances far enough to > break the light speed barrier have boggled the minds of most scientists > because they border on the magical. > > > That sounds clearly over the border so far! > > > < I don't expect anything I write to change anyone's mind really, but I might > just give you a hint of encouragement to entertain the possibility that the > other dimensions science is just beginning to attempt to fathom are all > "real," that each one embodies a richer, deeper, more unfathomable aspect of > infinity> > > I am 100% with you up to here. Part of my interest in challenging spiritual > explanations that claim to explain this mystery has to do with restoring the > more appropriate sense of humility that we are wondrous beings in a wondrous > world and do not have it all figured out from ancient literature. > > < and that they might even correspond to the nine angelic realms alluded to > in the bible or other bardos or lokas described in the east (in other words, > if you will, really ponder the possibility instead of rejecting it out of > hand as "weak").> > > I am not rejecting it out of hand. I devoted 15 years of my life to these > claims and went as far into the experience as I could. But the connection > you are making is between science and literature. For me, we might as well > be connecting them to the characters in Moby Dick. Underneath your statement > is an unspoken premise that these books are different from other imaginative > literature produced by humans. I can't assume that they had more a clue than > we do today and see much evidence that we have learned a lot about reality > since then that they got completely wrong. > > < I also believe that, eventually, science will come to a deeper, truer, > understanding/theory of everything that will, of necessity, close the gap > between science and the mystical. If there is any such thing as truth, it > will remain true no matter what the terminology surrounding it will be.> > > I don't k
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Tale Of Four "Enlightened" People
Tom Pall wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 5:12 PM, richardwillytexwilliams > wrote: > >> >>>> The poor fellow MUST be frustrated and angry... >>>> >> Tom Pall: >>> Where do I find these easy rules? I'm too busy trying >>> figure out which direction to face when I take crap in >>> the morning... >>> >> Have you figured out which corn cob to use - brown or >> white, wet or dry? >> >> > Corn cob? Might be worth a try. Someone gave me a toilet brush for > Christmas. After a few weeks I switched back to using paper. > Corn cob??? For all the good it'll do you, you might as well stuff it up your ass. But I know what you mean about the toilet brush. Somebody once gave me some "eau de toilette", but the taste was so perfume-like that I also had to go back. P Duff -- Dirt kicked to the curb goes into the gutter. Professionals kicked to the curb go into retail.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Persistence Of Woo Woo
Tom Pall wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:02 PM, P Duff > wrote: > >> Tom Pall wrote: >> > > P Duff of the lesser Boston area? The for a time a contributor to > alt.meditation.transcendental? You're alive and kicking? Wonderful? > > How's life been? You been part of this group all along and I just noticed > you or you just revealed yourself? > > I wasn't an initiator, I was just pussy whipped by a bunch of them so I > didn't get involved in dumping what was left over from the Puja off the > Tallahatchie River bridge. BTW, I took a special detour on my way to Queen > City from Austin to visit that very bridge. Nothing to write home about. > Glad to see ya back, boy! > Lessee... I'm still of lesser Bahston, and still alive and doing well. I recently married a woman truly deserving of worship and that's 'zactly what I do, loving every moment of my life w/ her. My daughter has grown into a full-blown matriculator in a NJ college, where she's majoring in indolence. Not much else going on I can think of offhand. I had joined FFL, oh, a couple months ago I guess, but have had little to say. I saw your post and the "widow's mite" in me caused me to contribute. (BTW, my reply to your post was not directed toward you, although it might have seemed that way. ) I had, as you pointed out, posted a bit in a.m.t. a few years ago but I had since fallen off the wagon. I miss those days. It was a good day when Andrew Skolnick would delve deeply into his innermost landspoil and therefrom thrust up craven images for the other naysayers to worship, and that's when the good times began to roll. Gawd, there's little better than free home delivery of Whack-a-Mole. But that was then and this is now, Harlem not being Harlem no mo'. FFL is a place different by far from what I had known. There are so many posts daily and most of the folks are erudite far beyond my ken. Then there are those who are so full of shit their eyes are brown. But I don't even have the time it takes to ignore them. Their posts pass by unnoticed, not unlike effluent from a sewage treatment plant. Re: pussy whipped, it's an intriguing notion and I shall make polite inquiry of my loving and adventuresome wife, who will likely... oh, wait, you probably meant something different from that. Sorrysorrysorry. In the more conventional sense of "pussy whipped" it is worth pointing out that there are not so much victims as there are volunteers. You might think that a pussy whipping would happen at the hands of your betters. But in reality it's more likely to be at the hands of those who can only think themselves your betters. Those few who are truly your betters will have more productive ways in which to use their time, pussy whipping generally being stock-in-trade for the insecure. Require folks to prove themselves to be honestly superior, which, in your case presents a forlorn prospect, and your whippings will go down as their chagrin goes up. I'm telling you, calling people on their shit w/ the delicacy of an alligator biting into a Hollywood bed is the best thing since Netflix. P Duff -- Dirt kicked to the curb goes into the gutter. Professionals kicked to the curb go into retail.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Persistence Of Woo Woo
I'm sorry, Barry, my comment was in no way intended to be directed toward you, although I can certainly see how you might have felt that way. There are just *so* many posts and the press of time being upon me turquoiseb wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, P Duff wrote: >> I, for one have always made those observances you seem to denigrate. >> And you forgot about the quaint practice of disposing of everything >> afterward in a natural body of water. I've always done that as well- >> white cloth, coconut shell, teny bits of incense stick, the whole >> nine yards. And if I could get a line on betel leaves, they'd be > there, >> too. >> >> And I do not account myself the least bit woo-woo for the effort. >> Rather, I find it satisfying to bring puja to its proper conclusion; a >> promise made and kept. I also admit to being puzzled by the notion > that >> there are those who consider a body of knowledge sufficiently valuable >> to warrant their going through considerable efforts to be able to > learn >> it, while at the same time valuing it little enough to disparage >> innocent paspects of it. Just my two cents' worth. Back to lurking. > > P, thanks for de-lurking, but if your comments were aimed at me, > I think you've possibly forgotten who you're talking to. I have no > reverence for the TM puja, have not performed it in decades, and > almost certainly never will again in this life. It was a ritual I > learned > while young and foolish, and now I am old and foolish, and prefer > other, more meaningful rituals, such as compulsively cleaning my > DVDs before playing them (although I never blow on them afterwards, > because that would be a waste of my valuable prana). > > In retrospect, since you seem to have brought up the reverence and > awe with which I and others are supposed to view the TM puja, I > can't really agree with you. It was IMO just a cobbled-together set > of traditional Indian buzzwords and phrases designed to produce > mood-making in the practitioner and a feeling of awe or wonder in > viewers. I don't believe in the magical Woo Woo properties either > of the words used in the puja, or as TM mantras. They're just words; > get over it. Nor do I feel the need to appease or appeal to a set of > gods > I don't believe in or praise a bunch of holy guys whom I don't believe > were either holy or deserve the praise. I tend to regard the puja the > same way I regard most of Indian culture -- the remnants of a barbaric, > superstitious nation whose scriptures tend to dwell overlong on justi- > fications for war, violence, elitism, and perpetuating genocide on those > who don't agree with the religious fanatics who wrote the scriptures. > In short, I am neither an Indiaphile nor a TMphile. The puja is as dead > to me as Maharishi is; neither has any place in my life, nor should. > > I wrote what I wrote because I caught myself waving at an incense > stick to put out the flame, and then laughing at the still-lingering > imprinting I'd picked up while in the TM movement. I thought others > here might laugh, too, because they probably were similarly imprinted. > Heck, I don't even burn incense much these days, except to cover the > smell of an occasional kitchen accident. > > All of this said, I shall probably continue to wave my paw at the > incense during the rare times I light some, just because it reminds > me of a favorite Dogbert cartoon. Thanks for providing the oppor- > tunity for a good rant; I've missed your set-ups. :-) I'm sorry, Barry, my comment was in no way intended to be directed toward you, although I can certainly see how you might have felt that way. Nor was it directed toward Tom Pall. He did the set-up and I piped up a bit. Part of my problem is that there are just *so* many posts and w/ the press of time being upon me I can read but the tiniest amount so context will likely be lacking. I like reading your and Tom's posts as time allows, but it's decidely hit-or-miss, w/ miss usually carrying the day. I in no way meant to suggest that you or anybody else should show reverence toward puja. In fact I do not myself show reverence for it; I merely show respect for it no matter the ignoble heritage it may have. I'm happy w/ where I am and give thanks as would seem appropriate in that context. Others do as they like w/ no animus from me. Being an initiator is not synonymous w/ being a self-aggrandizing asshole. Not always, anyway. My only point, poorly made it would seem, was that one cannot properly have it both ways; to think TM great and think it foolish all at once. I'm happy, as always, to have provided you w/ a set-up. P Duff --- Dirt kicked to the curb goes into the gutter. Professionals kicked to the curb go into retail.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Persistence Of Woo Woo
Tom Pall wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:50 AM, obbajeeba wrote: > >> You mean blowing or waving out the flame on the end of the stick of >> incense, right? lol >> >> I do either, and waving it around can send the ember lose and burning a >> hole onto whereever it is flung. lol >> >> >> > OK, how many here don't sniff the flowers because the fragrance is meant for > Maharishi or Guru Dev or the Holy Tradition? > > How many bought a brand new handkerchief for each initiation and were very > careful not to just stick the thing in their pocket to use as a snot rag > afterwards? > I, for one have always made those observances you seem to denigrate. And you forgot about the quaint practice of disposing of everything afterward in a natural body of water. I've always done that as well- white cloth, coconut shell, teny bits of incense stick, the whole nine yards. And if I could get a line on betel leaves, they'd be there, too. And I do not account myself the least bit woo-woo for the effort. Rather, I find it satisfying to bring puja to its proper conclusion; a promise made and kept. I also admit to being puzzled by the notion that there are those who consider a body of knowledge sufficiently valuable to warrant their going through considerable efforts to be able to learn it, while at the same time valuing it little enough to disparage innocent paspects of it. Just my two cents' worth. Back to lurking. P Duff -- Dirt kicked to the curb goes into the gutter. Professionals kicked to the curb go into retail.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Oro ergo sum
To put it into plain English, think, "Huis Clos." :) P Duff obbajeeba wrote: > I love this love affair of Judy and Turq or Turq and Judy "sitting in a > tree... k- i- s- s- i- n- g !"LOL. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: >> >>> I'm just bringing this up to give those on this forum who >>> might feel I'm addressing them directly -- even though I'm >>> not >> Well, of course you are, and everybody knows who you're >> addressing. After all, this is only the umptieth time >> you've made this particular post. >> >> -- to bounce off the >>> ideas I've presented. This is an example of the "provocative >>> writing" I described above; I expect some to get passionate >>> in the defense of arguing. Please, do so, if that floats >>> your boat. But don't expect me to argue with you. I said >>> pretty much all I have to say on the subject in my first >>> posts. >> It's not provocative, it's just lame, as it has been the >> umpty times you've made the post previously. Just for one >> thing, your observations are highly selective, both by >> circumstance (you can't read other people's private emails, >> so you have no idea whether arguing is their only means of >> social interaction, and of course you don't know how the >> vast majority of them interact "live") and by choice (you >> don't read the posts of some of the folks you're talking >> about, for example). >> >> A "passionate defense" of arguing is not called for, simply >> the observation (made many times before in response to this >> post and never addressed or taken into account) that some >> people enjoy the intellectual exercise of having their >> viewpoints challenged and attempting to defend them. You >> don't; you like to hand your opinions down (the same ones, >> over and over, most of them ad hominem) as if from on high, >> and then "stand pat," as you declare you're doing with >> this one. >> >> Yawn. Seems to me that's even more protective of the self, >> to constantly put down other people's selves while not >> being willing to risk exposing your own to challenge and >> engagement. But whatever gets you through the night... >> > > > -- Dirt kicked to the curb goes into the gutter. Professionals kicked to the curb go into retail.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Today is FFL's 10th Birthday
That's nice talk. Think you it likely that were I possessed of such beefy, swaggering manhood that I should fritter away my time cavorting about town? Rather I should find myself at home holed up w/ my wife, awash in libidinous excess. Alas and alack, my walk more closely approximates this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRVdGam3G2U It's a bitch getting old. P Duff turquoiseb wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, P Duff wrote: >> Nobody thought to invite me so I have invited myself. I had >> posted a bit in a.m.t. 10+ years ago so IMHO I pretty much >> qualify as an old-timer. It's great to "see" once again the >> folks w/ whom I spent memorable time, hanging in there and >> hanging out together. > > Welcome, P. I remember you and your characteristic walk: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iRZ2Sh5-XuM > > :-) > > > -- Dirt kicked to the curb goes into the gutter. Professionals kicked to the curb go into retail.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Today is FFL's 10th Birthday
Thank you, Alex. It's nice to be remembered. After 25 years too many, Judy and I were divorced. My ex-wife really likes the neighborhood so she became my neighbor, a scant five houses away; handy when her toilet acts up, like tonight. Meanwhile I have moved on to something better by far. I recently re-married (one yr tomorrow. Happy Anniversary!) and we live a life of devotion. Not some drippy, gold crown and bed sheet palaver, but by virtue of the better attributes that we enliven in each other. Tami, my wife, asked me to each her to meditate but it has been over 30 yrs since I've taught. I'm not sure that my transcender can hold all that material. Anybody got Cliff Notes for TM instruction? P Alex Stanley wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, P Duff wrote: >> Nobody thought to invite me so I have invited myself. I had >> posted a bit in a.m.t. 10+ years ago so IMHO I pretty much >> qualify as an old-timer. It's great to "see" once again the >> folks w/ whom I spent memorable time, hanging in there and >> hanging out together. >> >> P Duff > > > Wow, there's a blast from the past. My recollection is that when you're not > busy making beer for Homer Simpson, you enjoy married life with a woman who's > heavily into some flavor of energetic, hootin'n'hollerin', twitchin' on the > floor, Christianity. Welcome back! > > -- Dirt kicked to the curb goes into the gutter. Professionals kicked to the curb go into retail.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Today is FFL's 10th Birthday
Nobody thought to invite me so I have invited myself. I had posted a bit in a.m.t. 10+ years ago so IMHO I pretty much qualify as an old-timer. It's great to "see" once again the folks w/ whom I spent memorable time, hanging in there and hanging out together. P Duff raunchydog wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: >> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] >> On Behalf Of Alex Stanley >> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 8:47 AM >> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Today is FFL's 10th Birthday >> >> >> >> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >> <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer" wrote: > > Happy Birthday FFLife! Thanks, Rick and Alex for such a glorious play > station. Today is my birthday too. Sing it, Marilyn! > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqolSvoWNck > >>> I had meant to invite some of the old-timers back for a visit. LB Shriver, >>> Thom Krystofiak, Off World Beings (did invite him), Rudra Joe/Kirk >>> Bernhardt. Can you think of others? >>> >> Bob Brigante! >> >> I emailed him and all the names mentioned, including Shemp, Brigante, Kirk >> Bernhardt, LB Shiver, etc. >> > > > -- Dirt kicked to the curb goes into the gutter. Professionals kicked to the curb go into retail.
